Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws

[Lynn]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

[ForgedinHell]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

[Lynn]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

That is your right to believe that, just as it is mine to not accept your 'evidence'. Whether it is nonsense or not is debatable it would seem. The Bible is still part of the law process.

You have stated 'Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible' viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9501. Can you convince me that the Bible has not helped shape the establishment of America's laws? Here is your opportunity to enlighten me as to your view on how they were shaped.

[ForgedinHell]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

That is your right to believe that, just as it is mine to not accept your 'evidence'. Whether it is nonsense or not is debatable it would seem. The Bible is still part of the law process.

You have stated 'Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible' viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9501. Can you convince me that the Bible has not helped shape the establishment of America's laws? Here is your opportunity to enlighten me as to your view on how they were shaped.

The Bible definitely helped to establish slavery in America, as the Bible condones slavery. Many Christians justified holding slaves, based on the idea that the slave was now better off for being exposed to Christianity. It has also helped to promote Sunday blue laws, and to ban gay marriage. Those laws do have a religious basis. However, America's civil liberties, like freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law (which the Sunday blue laws, slavery and gay-marriage bans violate), etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with Chrstianity.

[tbieter]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

I'm also an attorney. I partially agree with Forgedinhell. I suggest that Blackstone's Commentaries were more influential in the formation of American legal concepts and practices than was the Bible.

Nevertheless, theological/biblical concepts were foundational for many American laws and practices. I recommend this book by Harold J. Berman: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Format ... revolution The book won the National Book Award for non-fiction in the year of publication.

Why does a clergyman accompany the condemned man to the executioner? So that, at the last moment, he can seek forgiveness and gain salvation. Why is the insane man not executed? Because he cannot seek forgiveness. Berman make the point that if society no longer accepts the theological reason, then there is no reason not to execute the insane, adjudicated guilty criminal.

Also, American bankruptcy law was intellectually based on the biblical requirement that the Jews forgive the debts of their debtors every six or so years.

[ForgedinHell]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

I'm also an attorney. I partially agree with Forgedinhell. I suggest that Blackstone's Commentaries were more influential in the formation of American legal concepts and practices than was the Bible.

Nevertheless, theological/biblical concepts were foundational for many American laws and practices. I recommend this book by Harold J. Berman: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Format ... revolution The book won the National Book Award for non-fiction in the year of publication.

Why does a clergyman accompany the condemned man to the executioner? So that, at the last moment, he can seek forgiveness and gain salvation. Why is the insane man not executed? Because he cannot seek forgiveness. Berman make the point that if society no longer accepts the theological reason, then there is no reason not to execute the insane, adjudicated guilty criminal.

Also, American bankruptcy law was intellectually based on the biblical requirement that the Jews forgive the debts of their debtors every six or so years.

The condemned man is not required to have some priest follow him to death, is he? That represents freedom of religion, which is counter to the Bible. And President Clinton, during his first presidential campaign, allowed a man to be executed who had the mental age of a 5 year old. That may not be insane, but he had no clue what was going on. For his last meal, he set aside his pie, "for later." He would play with trains in his cell, and had no idea he was being killed. The act was so gruesome that the guards who killed him quit their work after. Then governor Clinton, however, was not about to stop the execution because part of the reason why Dukakis (spelling?) lost the last presidential bid for the Democrats was because he was against the death penalty. The US has executed the innocent, the mentally feeble, and the insane. And if you are a trial lawyer, and if you have ever done any death-penalty cases, then I'm sure you'll agree with me that the last person you want on the jury as a defense attorney is a Christian fundamentalist. They are the first to want the death for your client. Not all Christians, just the fundies.

The Jubilee, and the seven-year debt forgiveness of the Jews was long abandoned by the Jews, precisely because it did not work. It was originally established to keep equal economic power among the different tribes, so one tribe would not enslave another. In other words, Jews were among the first people to be concerned with the effects of inequality on maintaining social order. However, after the reformation of the second temple, the twelve tribes were not present, so the land division was gotten rid of. The debt forgiveness was also done away with because it discouraged people making loans towards the end of the seven-year period, so the Jews abandoned it. Besides, the bankruptcy laws had to do with capitalism. It was felt that since most businesses fail, that bankruptcy was necessary to encourage people to take the chance on starting a business. That rationale exists no where in the Bible.

[bus2bondi]

i was in court recently and you are asked to 'swear to god you are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god' and i'm not sure, but i think, depending upon the type of trial, you are also asked to put your hand on the bible while doing that. i'm not sure if that is still in practice or not. i wonder how an atheist feels about that?

essentially, if the judge is addessing an atheist, the judge is unintentially forcing someone to lie is't he/she? and who knows, maybe the judge might be an atheist as well, but is only doing his or her best to lawfully follow this particular established norm. or it might be the only thing that particular judge knows, or ever has known, and means nothing by it, although may be unintentially violating a particular human right?

[ForgedinHell]

i was in court recently and you are asked to 'swear to god you are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god' and i'm not sure, but i think, depending upon the type of trial, you are also asked to put your hand on the bible while doing that. i'm not sure if that is still in practice or not. i wonder how an atheist feels about that?

essentially, if the judge is addessing an atheist, the judge is unintentially forcing someone to lie is't he/she? and who knows, maybe the judge might be an atheist as well, but is only doing his or her best to lawfully follow this particular established norm. or it might be the only thing that particular judge knows, or ever has known, and means nothing by it, although may be unintentially violating a particular human right?

I have tried literally hundreds of trials, in all sorts of forums, state county courts, district courts, federal courts, administrative agencies, bench trials and jury trials. I have cross-examined thousands of witnesses, and directly examined thousands. Yet, I have never, ever, seen any witness ever have to swear on any holy book to testify. The rules of procedure allow a witness to testify without swearing such an oath, and I have never seen any judge ask a witness to do so. Witnesses are simply advised that they are under penalty of perjury, and they agree to tell the truth. In fact, the rules of evidence in, I'm pretty sure every state and the federal courts, prohibits any party from bringing up their religion to boost their credibility.

[bus2bondi]

thanks, well we were asked to do this. i've been in court at other times in my life, and i recall this as being a part of the procedure as well. it was a long time ago, and i'm not sure if it happened each time. but at least once or twice i recall this. i recall having to put my hand on a bible and raising my right hand 'so help you god'. perhaps it is slowly going out of practice?

[ForgedinHell]

thanks, well we were asked to do this. i've been in court at other times in my life, and i recall this as being a part of the procedure as well. it was a long time ago, and i'm not sure if it happened each time. but at least once or twice i recall this. i recall having to put my hand on a bible and raising my right hand 'so help you god'. perhaps it is slowly going out of practice?

What geographic area are you referring to? I practice in the west. There is another attorney on here, maybe that user has a different perspective. I do know that the model rules of evidence, when I was in law school, had already established the right of a witness to just affirm that he or she would tell the truth, without the need for any religious oath. I suppose there may be some small places in the US where religious oaths still take place, buit even there, I'm willing to bet the witness does have the right to refuse and just affirm to tell the truth. It has to be that way, or else there is a violation of the First Amendment. The forced oath would be unconstitutional.

[tbieter]

thanks, well we were asked to do this. i've been in court at other times in my life, and i recall this as being a part of the procedure as well. it was a long time ago, and i'm not sure if it happened each time. but at least once or twice i recall this. i recall having to put my hand on a bible and raising my right hand 'so help you god'. perhaps it is slowly going out of practice?

What geographic area are you referring to? I practice in the west. There is another attorney on here, maybe that user has a different perspective. I do know that the model rules of evidence, when I was in law school, had already established the right of a witness to just affirm that he or she would tell the truth, without the need for any religious oath. I suppose there may be some small places in the US where religious oaths still take place, buit even there, I'm willing to bet the witness does have the right to refuse and just affirm to tell the truth. It has to be that way, or else there is a violation of the First Amendment. The forced oath would be unconstitutional.

bus2 and I live in Minnesota. Here are the relevant statutes on the oaths and affirmations of witnesses: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=358.07 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=358.08

[ForgedinHell]

thanks, well we were asked to do this. i've been in court at other times in my life, and i recall this as being a part of the procedure as well. it was a long time ago, and i'm not sure if it happened each time. but at least once or twice i recall this. i recall having to put my hand on a bible and raising my right hand 'so help you god'. perhaps it is slowly going out of practice?

What geographic area are you referring to? I practice in the west. There is another attorney on here, maybe that user has a different perspective. I do know that the model rules of evidence, when I was in law school, had already established the right of a witness to just affirm that he or she would tell the truth, without the need for any religious oath. I suppose there may be some small places in the US where religious oaths still take place, buit even there, I'm willing to bet the witness does have the right to refuse and just affirm to tell the truth. It has to be that way, or else there is a violation of the First Amendment. The forced oath would be unconstitutional.

bus2 and I live in Minnesota. Here are the relevant statutes on the oaths and affirmations of witnesses: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=358.07 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=358.08

Thanks for that. I was amazed at the language. We don't do anything like that in Colorado, I've never once seen any reference made to god in even small counties. You don't think it's a violation of the First Amendment? Has it been constitutionally challenged? What does an atheist, or a buddhist, or a pagan do when asked to swear the oath? Even if a modified oath is used, there would still be a difference in oath that the jurors would hear among the different witnesses being called to testify, which could unfairly impact their decision.

Minnesota has some large metropolitan areas too. I'm surprised. Thanks for sharing though.

[tbieter]

Minnesota may be a deeply blue state with a Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, but the population is also highly religious. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... eyword=god See sections 16 and 17 of the state bill of rights. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/constitution/#section_1_1 See my article which mentions sec. 16.
http://mnbenchbar.com/2007/07/witness-lie-in-court/

[ForgedinHell]

Minnesota may be a deeply blue state with a Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, but the population is also highly religious. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... eyword=god See sections 16 and 17 of the state bill of rights. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/constitution/#section_1_1 See my article which mentions sec. 16.
http://mnbenchbar.com/2007/07/witness-lie-in-court/

Despite some of the things I write here, I actually have great "faith" in the majority of religious Americans. I think most of them are good, and recognize the need to separate church and state, to preserve their own religious freedom. I have often pointed out to atheists that if the Christians really wanted to enslave us, etc., they have been in the majority for so long, they could have done so long ago. I actually think religious people in America are overall quite tolerant, and are not the drooling idiots that some people proclaim them to be, i.e., Dawkins and Hitch. I would think even religious people could see the point in changing the oath. A lot of what I write on here is to encourage people to think about their views, instead of just blindly accepting them.

[Lynn]

Not having in-depth knowledge of USA history, I found the website below interesting, especially given recent threads.

Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws, http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government, looks at how the Bible helped shape the establishment of America's laws e.g. universal human rights and rule of law; and the effects where the Bible's principles have not been been applied e.g. racial slavery and unrestrained capitalism.

I'm an attorney, and it's all nonsense. There is not a single course, or even a single minute, in the law school classroom, that mentions the Bible as the basis for America's laws. In fact, the First Amendment, the greatest law of all, is counter to the first three or four ten commandments, as well as the entire concept of blasphemy. The burning and drowning of heretics for centuries should be enough evidence for anyone that America's legal system does not come from the Bible.

I'm also an attorney. I partially agree with Forgedinhell. I suggest that Blackstone's Commentaries were more influential in the formation of American legal concepts and practices than was the Bible.

Nevertheless, theological/biblical concepts were foundational for many American laws and practices. I recommend this book by Harold J. Berman: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Format ... revolution The book won the National Book Award for non-fiction in the year of publication.

Why does a clergyman accompany the condemned man to the executioner? So that, at the last moment, he can seek forgiveness and gain salvation. Why is the insane man not executed? Because he cannot seek forgiveness. Berman make the point that if society no longer accepts the theological reason, then there is no reason not to execute the insane, adjudicated guilty criminal.

Also, American bankruptcy law was intellectually based on the biblical requirement that the Jews forgive the debts of their debtors every six or so years.

I have looked at synopsises of Blackstone's Commentaries, and Law and Revolution; both of which encourage me to investigate further. However, still following Tom's advice as to the Blackstone's Commentaries being more influential than the Bible, I was surprised to find the following background information on The Blackstone Institute website, http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org/sirw ... stone.html

The Blackstone Institute honors Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone was the great Eighteenth Century English legal scholar whose philosophy and writings were infused with Judeo-Christian principles. The Ten Commandments are at the heart of Blackstone's philosophy. Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority. Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was basic to the U. S. Constitution. This work has sold more copies in America than in England and was a basic textbook of America’s early lawyers. It was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone. An attack on Blackstone is an attack on the U. S. Constitution and our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The Blackstone Institute is committed to reviving the Constitution and its Blackstonian foundations.

Imo, the jury is still out wrt establishment and for today also, which is subject to regional/state variations and historical processes.